Seeing the Light, Finally. Sort Of

​​Back in December, I wrote an article here about how I believed Republicans had painted themselves into a corner, and were between a huge rock and an incredibly hard place.  It was that either Trump got the party’s nomination, which meant that every GOP candidate would have to run in support of the party leader with four then-likely indictments and having been found liable for the equivalence of rape, which risks crushing all candidates in swing districts – or he doesn’t get the nomination, in which case (being a “malignant narcissist,” a medical term) he will burn the party down -- one of the symptoms of being a malignant narcissist -- trash the nominee and perhaps even expressly tell his supporters not to vote.  Though many likely wouldn’t vote even if he didn’t tell him.  (Actually, the article notes that I first referenced this “rock/hard place” problem that Republicans face a few months even earlier, although I can’t find it to link.)

I mention this all because of a story that appeared in The Hill this week.  It’s headlined – “GOP sees turnout disaster without Trump.”

My immediate reaction was, “Gee, ya think??!”  Followed by, "Well, it’s about time the media picked up on this obvious problem."  (I should add that I think Trump is still likely to get the Republican nomination, even with four indictments and being found liable for rape.  And perhaps even if he’s convicted, making that rock/hard place even more pronounced, which I wrote about here six weeks ago.  So, that makes it three times I've written about it in the past which, which is how clear this problem is for the Republicans, whether they recognize is or not.)  I should add, as well, that so far only one article I've found has grasped this blatant point.  And pretty much zero TV analysts.

But happily, the light has at least started to break through, even if it's taken the Hubble telescope for one member of the media to spot it.  The Hill article at last does get it, even if it focuses almost exclusive on just the voting part -- which is extremely important, to be sure, though only part of the problem, and arguably not even the worst part.  (And it also ignores the problem the party faces if Trump is their nominee.)  Written by Alexander Bolton, it notes, “GOP strategists say there’s growing concern that if Trump is not the nominee, many of his core supporters, who are estimated to make up 25 percent to 35 percent of the party base, ‘will take their ball and go home.’ 

‘The conventional wisdom is there’s concern that if Trump’s not the nominee, his coalition will take their ball and go home,’ said Matt Dole, a Republican strategist based in Ohio, where Republicans are targeting vulnerable Democratic Sen. Sherrod Brown.”

Finally.  Someone in the media gets that ​part.

Feeding into this is a Pew Research analysis of the 2022 midterm election.  That study was published only last month, and the results showed higher turnout among Trump voters in the Mid-terms was a key factor behind Republicans taking control of the House.  It should be added, however, that although the GOP did take control, their paltry margin was overwhelming less than the party’s anticipated “Red wave” of as much as an additional 60 votes.  So, without Trump on the ballot, the fear is clearly understandable.  (Though I would suggest that having a four-time indicted candidate found liable for rape at the top of the ticket, there’s plenty of room for fear about that, as well.  Which, as I noted, is something the piece doesn't even get into.)

What the article does add, though, is –

“Brian Darling, a Republican strategist and former Senate aide, said there would be significant political fallout for Republicans if federal and local criminal prosecutions derail Trump’s path to the nomination.  

‘If somehow he’s not the nominee, it will hurt turnout,’ he said. ‘He’s got a unique coalition. He brings a lot of nontraditional voters to the Republican Party, and it will be difficult to win a state like Ohio’ and other Midwestern states ‘if you lose all those Trump voters or make them disaffected voters, and they don’t show up.’”

But my favorite comment comes later in the article, from Bob Clegg, an Ohio-based Republican strategist.  That's where the article finally gets around to the other part, the "worst part" of the story, that risks even being more devasting to the party.  He says --

“I would say there’s two scenarios, either Trump’s the nominee and we just go with it and whatever, or Trump’s not the nominee and then we have a nominee that Trump’s going to be trashing.”  

Not only does he say almost precisely what I wrote here a couple months ago about Trump burning down the party and trashing the nominee, but far more than anything, I most especially, dearly love Clegg's passionate comment when describing Trump actually being the Republican presidential nominee: “…and we just go with it and whatever.”  I mean, man, if that isn’t the prime example of glowing, exuberant enthusiasm for your party’s leader atop the ticket to evangelically inspire your voters!

“…and we just go with it and whatever.”

Now, there's a party slogan for you!  Right up there with "I Like Ike, Basically."  And "Some of the Way with LBJ."

How much more stirred up can you get?!   What better battle cry can you blast out?!   “…and we just go with it and whatever.”

Gee, ya think?